Of course it would have, but as mentioned many times in this thread, the educational appraoch has been 'on the table' far longer than the idea of a Wl BSR, and it has gained no ground.

Nope has not gained any ground because the same shit keeps happening and has for the last 10 years. I think a WL BSR is much more needed than the wingsuit and camera BSR.

.

The people who failed to get a wingload BSR based on jump numbers 7 years ago for lack of a coherent argument based on data have had 7 years to collect some data supporting their position. As Davelepka so frequently points out, they haven't done it.

I fail to see why there is such strong opposition to basing it on provable, testable ability, just like we do for PRO ratings, AFF ratings, etc. If we can evaluate someone's suitability for performing in public with a fairly straightforward test, how hard can it be to evaluate their suitability for a small canopy. The test could consist of demonstrating to an instructor or S&TA the performance of billvon's checklist items, or satisfactory completion of an advanced canopy course.

Just to clarify, I'm not making this shit up, the italics in the following quote are your italics of my post, and the response is your response to my quote

Quote:

They will have the benefit of the solid base of skills you agreed would stem from a controlled downsizing progression, not to mention the influence of a community who accepts and endorses the BSR (just like the community today accepts and endroses the BSRs).

You did agree to it while responding to previous post. Below is the question I posed, and underneath is your repsone, both cut and pasted from one of your above posts.

Quote:

Would you not agree that a jumper, any jumper, who follows a systematic process of downsizing, to include at least 100 jumps on each canopy, will build a more solid base of skills then the jumper who jumps a canopy at the borderline of his skill only to downsize as they start to get a handle on the first one?

My Old Timer's Disease notwithstanding, a wingloading BSR is still a bandaid on a severed artery, but maybe this reasonably well-reasoned discussion (on both sides) will in fact get us to address the 900-pound gorilla in the room and at least head in the right direction on this.

Kudos to you and everyone else on this thread who's at least thinking about this, including ol' Bill picking nits to absurdity and beyond.

Dave, I think you kinda shoot your own argument ion the foot when first you say "What is unsafe and what is not?" And a couple of paragraphs later you say "Does it guarantee that every jumper will spend some time on a conservative wing at a reasonable loading? Yes." Who decides what is a reasonable loading? You? Kinda stands to reason that what is reasonable for Student A might not be reasonable for Student B

Sure, that's why you set the standard for jumper B, and jumper A has to 'suffer' by jumping out an airplane with a bigger canopy then they think is cool. What a shame.

I'm not suggesting any numbers. I only have 5000 jumps, 15 years in the sport, and have never designed a canopy. I defer to Brian Germains WL chart because he has 10,000+ jumps, 20 years in the sport, a degree in aeronautical engineering, and has designed several very successful canopies. He created the chart several years ago with the intention of it becoming the standard to follow.

Let's face it, someone somewhere has to come up with the numbers. There will be no sign from above, or act of congress, at some level a person, or persons, will have to sit down and say, 'This is the deal'.

It's interesting how I, with my experience and qualifications giving me every right to be head-strong, realize the benefit of defering to a person, Brian Germain, who is clearly my superior in these matters, yet you, with little to fall back on would suggest it outrageous that I would be the one to generate the numbers to follow, despite the superiority of my qualifications to yours.

I never suggested or implied that anything was outrageous, I simply asked a question. You ask in one sentence "what is safe and unsafe" (as in what I consider safe someone else may consider not safe), then in another you say a w/l BSR would keep people at a "reasonable" wingloading. If safe and unsafe cannot be determined across the board, then how can a "reasonable" wingload? How would you react if, instead of a wingload BSR, USPA and the manufacturers simply decided that they would no longer produce any parachutes smaller than, say, a 150? I personally think Dr Kallend and Robin have the right idea if anything is to be done. And you still did not address the fact that most of the incidents I have read in the last few years have been up jumpers that would not have been affected by a BSR to begin with...

And you still did not address the fact that most of the incidents I have read in the last few years have been up jumpers that would not have been affected by a BSR to begin with...

I address it several times in the thread. The only incidents we have hard facts on are fatal incidents. If the majority of those are jumpers with more than 600 or 700 jumps, then so be it.

Non-fatal incidents are another story. There is no record of the hard facts of these incidents, and in some cases there is no record at all. I can think of a handful of broken ankles, tib/fibs, and femurs that were never reported to anyone (some before DZ.com, and some since).

If you look at the non-fatal incidents on DZ.com, you'll find they out number the fatal incidents, and then when you figure in all of the non-fatal incidents that are never recorded, it's clear that the non-fatal incidents out number the fatal incidents handily.

The argument then becomes that the non-fatal incidents may themselves also be mostly made up of high time jumpers. I cannot dis-prove this anymore then the nay-sayers can prove it.

This is generally where I look to the countries already with a WL and canopy type regulation in place. They may indeed have statistics available to indicate the success of the program, but I don't have, nor am I really interesting in getting them. I look at the fact that the programs remains in place after several years as an indicator that the regulatory bodies in those countries are happy with the results. Be it an outright success, or simply that it has done no harm thus far, they keep the program in place, and that says something to me.

Quote:

You ask in one sentence "what is safe and unsafe" (as in what I consider safe someone else may consider not safe), then in another you say a w/l BSR would keep people at a "reasonable" wingloading. If safe and unsafe cannot be determined across the board, then how can a "reasonable" wingload?

You're comparing two different things. If you were to use a test-out standard in determining canopy progression, each tester would have different opinions of a jumpers performance and readiness for this canopy or that. A jumper can be cleared by a more liberal test administrator, who may feel that the jumper just barely 'squeaked by', but passed none the less. That same jumper would have a problem if they showed up at a DZ where the test administrator was more conservative. Maybe that test admin. would have wanted to see a 'stellar' performance on the test for the jumper in question to be jumping the same canopy the other guy passed them on.

With a WL BSR, the desicions would be made in advance by one person, or a group or persons, as to what is acceptable for given number of jumps. The standard would apply equally to every jumper at every DZ. Jumpers could expect that the DZO at one DZ will be referencing the same chart that the S&TA will be referencing at another.

As is the situation now, either of those two will retain the right to deny anyone to jump at any time for any reason, but a jumper can expect that it will not be due to their canopy choice, a canopy they are permitted to jump elsewhere.

Smart people with an interest in this working would ultimately make the call as to what the chart would allow. Expect the chart to reflect WL and canopy types that will be somewhat below the ability of the best and brightest, and some what challenging for the less talented. Such is the definition or 'average' or 'reasonable', they would be good choices for the majority of jumpers as determined by people with the experience and qualifications to make such a judgement.

In a thread in the swooping forum (Swoop Gone Wrong - The Aftermath), a jumper from Sweeden posted some info about WL and canopy type regulations in that country, and his exact words are-

Quote:

Here in Sweden we have a downsizing chart, showing the smallest canopy a skydiver with less than 500 jumps is allowed to jump. It progresses from a WL of a little less than 1 for a beginner, to about 1.45:1 at 500 jumps. Before being allowed to jump an elliptical parachute, skydivers have to pass two canopy piloting courses - one for basic piloting skills (flat turns, riser/harness turns, landing in brakes/on rears, pitch and flare, stall points etc), and one specifically for flying HP canopies. Before swooping, skydivers must have done 500 jumps, and must (in addition to the basic and HP piloting courses) go a swoop piloting course.

Sweden did not see the increase in landing deaths/injuries that the US did at the advent of HP canopies. The last skydiving death (IIRC) in Sweden was in 2005, where a skydiver who had sat in on, but not participated in, a swoop piloting course hooked in. Not arguing one way or the other, just providing an example of how it's done in another country.

I sent a PM to get some clarification on a few points, and as it turns out, no jumper is permitted to jump an eliptical canopy with less than 300 jumps. Beyond 300 jumps, you are required to take (and pass) the two canopy control courses mentioned above. Even then, you are still held to the WL limits of the chart with your eliptical until you have reached 500 jumps.

Swooping any canopy of any kind requries a min. of 500 jumps, and passing the two aforementioned canopy control courses and a swoop specific canopy control course.

In this instance, they have found a way to make the 'test out' option work. Since the 'test out' option in this case is optional itself, it becomes a practical reality. A jumper not wishing to test out, is not required to, and can simply follow the chart until they reach a WL they are happy with or they advance beyond the 500 jumps limit of the chart.

The problem with only having a 'test out' option, is that it requires everyone to take a test in order to advance, so you're either stuck with your first canopy for 500 jumps, or you have to take a test. This is why the test would have to be universally accessible to everyone, as-in at evey USPA DZ in the country.

An additional problem, is that if the test is not used to advance through a pre-written progression (like a WL chart), you run into the problems where test administrator A feels that Jim Jumper would be fine on 'X' canopy, but test admin. B at another DZ feels that Jim Jumper is not ready for canopy 'X'. So when Jim Jumper shopws up at that DZ, he may have a problem.

So first it's the Volvo, and now this, the Sweeds have done it again. Their method seems to solve all of the complaints that each side of this issue has about the other side.

The WL BSR crowd gets their WL chart, non-negotiable up to 300 jumps. There is a test-out option for those who want to push harder, but that is not required, and a less aggresive jumper can choose to pass on the test-out option and simply proceed within the confines of the chart.

The 'test-out' crowd gets just that, the option for jumpers to move beyond the confines of the chart. Testing out requires continued education, and testing out for swooping requires even further education. Seeing as the 'test out' option is optional, is eliminates the problems of making the test standards universal, and the test itself universally available.

>I personally know many people who have never made a jump but who >know, through their common sense and/or equivalent risk experience, >that it's not a good idea to jump a really fast parachute on their second >jump.

Cool. In my experience, the great majority do not, and must rely on other people's advice to come to that sort of conclusion. People simply do not have the background to make that decision - which is why we have minimum jump requirements for a great many things in skydiving.

>I personally know many people who have never made a jump but who >know, through their common sense and/or equivalent risk experience, >that it's not a good idea to jump a really fast parachute on their second >jump.

Cool. In my experience, the great majority do not, and must rely on other people's advice to come to that sort of conclusion. People simply do not have the background to make that decision - which is why we have minimum jump requirements for a great many things in skydiving.

There is no evidence that 200 jumps or 500 jumps or whatever is required to achieve the level of knowledge or ability needed to do X (where X = wingsuit, camera, HP canopy). Nor is there any evidence that said knowledge and ability is guaranteed to be imparted by some specific number of jumps. Your fixation with jump numbers is blinding you to the real problem.

I believe a BSR based on jump numbers alone is a good start, but like everything else needs external input. There is empirical evidence that protecting jumpers from themselves via wingloading has worked in other countries.Jump numbers may/are not the only solution, but it's the best baseline existing that can somewhat blanket the sport.

There will be the naysayers that point to someone pounding in with thousands of jumps, but those are the rarities vs the norm/average, and average seems to be where the BSR is pointed.

How is it that experiencedpeople coupled with common sense can see these incidents coming long before they happen, yet we should not be allowed point to jump numbers as being relevant?

from my limited experience, in my country, rather progressive downsizing wasnt only advised, but in some ways expected; you're now a licensed skydiver, get a rather smallish canopy (150 in my case, but i havent heard of many that were advised larger than a 170) and LEARN HOW TO FLY IT WELL!

so yea, i should be dead already, yet, i'm still kicking.. and i leech our gurus ears every moment possible, and so far, nobody has said "that chute wont do you no good!". so i still think i'm doing good, but out of the 40ish jumps on the new system, about 30 were hop n'pops, learning the new canopy.. kinda has to do with determination, will and wanting to learn..

I am interested in why you are flying a conservative canopy at a relatively high wingloading, as opposed to getting a more HP canopy. The only reason I could think of is because you are into wingsuiting, but it does not say that on your profile.

This is NOT an attack in any way - just trying to understand your choice.

well, coming from an original sabre 150 for the last 200 jumps, and next balances from 230's down to 190's as a student, i think the safire2 is the WAY more modern design as a first..

2ndly, by my instructors advice, they told me to get pretty much what i am jumping now.. smallish canopy, high wingload.. jumped a 135 stiletto inbetween, but by my own choice, i didnt want to go fully elliptical just yet.. the saf will last me AT LEAST for the next 200 or so jumps.. tough, i'm already thinking of ordering a 109 XF. but yea, i kinda want to get 270's nailed on that one..

i really like the safire2; the recovery-arc is kinda shortish, since i still kinda like starting my approach rather high (>300ft) .. flare is AWESOME compared to the sabre, and we dont need to talk about openings here, right!?

while i wouldnt want to recommend my progression to everyone, i stayed on a tractor of a 150 at almost 1.4 WL for around 200 jumps, i STILL think that BG's or billvons list are.. yea, whatever they are..

modern parachutists that have learned one way or the other.. DONT have to do 100 jumps with rounds just to earn their rights to jump a square ZP-canopy!

ALL my instructors have learned on canopies WAYS bigger than mine; and i'm being very honest here, but i'm NOT gods gift to canopy-piloting; but i'm also not the most terrible, in comparison..

sure, bigger is better, but when i hear of a kinda biggish guy being advised on a 220 or the like, i started out on a 230, and "downsized" (as a student) down to a 190.. and i'm really not that light!

so yea, basically, i'm following my instructors, sure, stretching it a bit this way or the other, but around here, i'm not doing anything out of the extraordinary..

i think that education is the key, not jump-numbers, will and determination, also some sort of "how does ze jumper act on the dz" and what not, and to be honest again, i'm NOT your poster-boy!

but hey, earning a reputation as a "bad boy", and MAINTAINING it for over 300 jumps, doesnt show only effort and will..

oh, and BTW, i like wingsuiting too, with first flights around 70 jumps, and a mach1 slightly over 180 jumps together.. i definitely wouldnt recommend THAT!!!

>Nor is there any evidence that said knowledge and ability is guaranteed >to be imparted by some specific number of jumps.

Agreed. However, there is ample evidence that said knowledge and ability cannot be acquired WITHOUT experience - which is why USPA licenses (which are "gates" for several things in skydiving) have a minimum jump number requirement. You may disagree with the numbers involved - but only a fool would claim that no experience (as measured by jump numbers) is needed to safely advance to the more dangerous aspects/pursuits in skydiving.

>Nor is there any evidence that said knowledge and ability is guaranteed >to be imparted by some specific number of jumps.

Agreed. However, there is ample evidence that said knowledge and ability cannot be acquired WITHOUT experience - which is why USPA licenses (which are "gates" for several things in skydiving) have a minimum jump number requirement. You may disagree with the numbers involved - but only a fool would claim that no experience (as measured by jump numbers) is needed to safely advance to the more dangerous aspects/pursuits in skydiving.

You can have the experience of 1000 jumps, or the experience of one jump repeated 1000 times. A point you repeatedly fail to understand.

I saw this as a Knee jerk re-action to recent incidents at the time and what may be a workable solution at a big turbine DZ may not have any bearing at all on a small club DZ

Anyone who knows me will tell you that my main concern is keeping small dropzones alive because they are the backbone of our sport.

I voted yes on the group pledge to keep landing areas seperate by time and/or geography. I voted against the BSR.

Wouldn't this actually be easier to track on a small DZ then a large one? Fewer jumpers overall, and fewer jumpers on each load? Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see how this would be more trouble for small DZ.

This is generally where I look to the countries already with a WL and canopy type regulation in place. They may indeed have statistics available to indicate the success of the program, but I don't have, nor am I really interesting in getting them. I look at the fact that the programs remains in place after several years as an indicator that the regulatory bodies in those countries are happy with the results. Be it an outright success, or simply that it has done no harm thus far, they keep the program in place, and that says something to me.

Or as SStewart said:

Quote:

A BSR once voted on and approved becomes permanent and is much easier to approve than to revoke. You are pretty much stuck with it right or wrong.